NOT YET-Constructions in the Swedish Skellefteå Dialect Jill Zachrisson Department of Linguistics Independent Project for the Degree of Bachelor 15 HEC General Linguistics Spring term 2020 Supervisor: Ljuba Veselinova Examiner: Mats Wirén Swedish Title: Inte än-konstruktioner i Skelleftemålet Project affiliation: Expectations shaping grammar: searching for the link between tense-aspect and negation, a research project supported by the Swedish Research Council (Grant nr 2016-01045) NOT YET-Constructions in the Swedish Skellefteå Dialect Abstract Expressions such as not yet, already, still and no longer belong to a category called Phasal Polarity (Phasal Polarity), and express phase, polarity and speaker expectations. In European languages, these often appear as phasal adverbs. However, in the Skellefteå dialect, spoken in northern Sweden, another type of construction is also used to express not yet. The construction consists of the auxiliary hɶ ‘have’ together with the supine form of the lexical verb prefixed by the negative prefix o-, for example I hɶ oskrive breve ‘I haven’t written the letter yet’. I will refer to this construction as the o-construction. Constructions meaning not yet have lately been referred to as nondum (from Latin nondum 'not yet') (Veselinova & Devos, forthcoming) and appear to be widely used in grammaticalized forms in, for example, Austronesian- and Bantu languages. The o-construction in the Skellefteå dialect is only mentioned but has no detailed documentation in existing descriptions. The aim of this study is to collect data and analyze the use of this construction. Data were collected through interaction with speakers of the Skellefteå dialect, using questionnaires and direct elicitation. The results show that the o- construction occurs in the dialect to express NOT YET, but only in specific contexts, where certain conditions must be met. It tends to occur with telic predicates and an omniscient narrator and high probability of the event to materialize in near future enhances the chance of the o-construction to be used. This stand in contrast with more grammaticalized nondums in Austronesian- and Bantu languages where these expressions have a more general meaning and wider applicability. Keywords Nondum, Phasal Polarity, speaker expectations, Westrobothnian, Swedish Sammanfattning Uttryck som inte än, redan, fortfarande och inte längre tillhör en kategori som kallas Phasal Polarity (Phasal Polarity), och uttrycker fas, polaritet och talarförväntningar. I europeiska språk förekommer dessa ofta som fasala adverb. I skelleftemålet, talat i Västerbotten, förekommer dock även en annan typ av konstruktion för att uttrycka inte än. Konstruktionen består av hjälpverbet ’hɶ’ tillsammans med supinumformen av verbet och det negativa prefixet o-, till exempel I hɶ oskrive breve ’Jag har inte skrivit brevet än’. Jag kommer att hänvisa till denna konstruktion som o-konstruktionen. Konstruktioner med betydelsen inte än har den senaste tiden kommit att benämnas som nondum (från latinets nondum ’ännu inte’) (Veselinova & Devos, forthcoming) och tycks förekomma i vid utsträckning i grammatikaliserad form i exempelvis austronesiska språk och bantuspråk. Denna o-konstruktion i skelleftemålet är tidigare nämnd men inte vidare beskriven inom existerande litteratur. Den här studien syftar till att samla in data och analysera användningen av den. Insamling av data har skett genom interaktion med talare av skelleftemålet, genom frågeformulär och direkt elicitering. Resultaten visar att o-konstruktionen förekommer i skelleftemålet för att uttrycka inte än, men endast i specifika kontexter, där vissa förutsättningar måste vara uppfyllda. Den tenderar att förekomma med teliska predikat och ett allvetande subjekt, samt hög sannolikhet för eventet att realiseras i nära framtid, ökar chansen att konstruktionen används. Detta står i kontrast till mer grammatikaliserade nondumkonstruktioner i austronesiska språk och bantuspråk, där dessa uttryck har en mer generell betydelse och vidare användningsområde. Nyckelord Nondum, phasal polarity, talarförväntningar, skelleftemål, svenska 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 4 Presentation Conventions ........................................................................... 5 2 Background ....................................................................................... 6 The Skellefteå Dialect ................................................................................ 6 Historical- and Social Context of the Skellefteå Dialect ............................. 6 Differences between Standard Swedish and the Skellefteå dialect related to NOT YET. ........................................................................................................ 7 Phasal Polarity .......................................................................................... 8 Phasal Polarity Expressions ................................................................... 8 Kramer´s Parameters .........................................................................10 NOT YET as a Grammatical Marker .......................................................10 The Perfect, ALREADY and Iamitives .....................................................12 Aktionsarten ............................................................................................13 Semantic Roles ........................................................................................14 3 Purpose and Research Questions ..................................................... 16 4 Method............................................................................................. 17 Choice of Method .....................................................................................17 Questionnaire 1 .......................................................................................17 Questionnaire 2 .......................................................................................18 Choice of Consultants and Procedure ..........................................................19 5 Results ............................................................................................. 22 Frequency of the O-Construction ................................................................22 Contexts that Trigger the O-Construction ....................................................25 Structure of the O-Construction ...........................................................25 Aktionsarten ......................................................................................26 Current Status of the Predicate ............................................................28 Semantic Roles ..................................................................................29 Expectations ......................................................................................31 Negation where Expectation is missing ..................................................33 Cross-linguistic comparison .......................................................................34 6 Discussion ....................................................................................... 35 Tendencies in the Use of the O-Construction ................................................35 Variation between Consultants ...................................................................36 The o-construction from a cross-linguistic perspective ...................................37 7 Conclusions ..................................................................................... 39 Future Research .......................................................................................40 References ............................................................................................ 41 Appendix A: Questionnaire 1 ................................................................. 43 Appendix B: Questionnaire 1, English version ....................................... 46 Appendix C: Questionnaire 2 ................................................................. 48 Appendix D: Questionnaire 2, English version ....................................... 50 2 List of Abbreviations 1 First person 2 Second person 3 Third person 5 Noun class 5 6 Noun class 6 ANT Anterior DET Determiner FV Final vowel IAM Iamitive INC Inceptive INF Infinitive NEG Negation NOND Nondum PL Plural PST Past tense PTCP Participle REFL Reflexive SBJ Subject SG Singular SUP Supine 3 1 Introduction In order to convey meanings such as not yet, already, still and no longer, European languages commonly use adverbial expressions. The four English adverbials mentioned above are part of what is called Phasal Polarity, a term used for expressions involving phase, polarity as well as speaker expectations (van Baar, 1997:1). When it comes to Standard Swedish, constructions used for Phasal Polarity follow the general trend of European languages with constructions involving adverbials, as shown in the example with inte än ‘not yet’ below: (1) Standard Swedish Jag har inte skrivit brev-et än(nu) I have not write.SUP letter-DET yet ‘I haven’t written the letter yet’ (own data) A different encoding has been observed in a northern Swedish dialect, which was brought to attention by Dahl (2010). The examples cited by Dahl are from a grammar and dictionary on the Northern Westrobothnian dialect from the area of Skellefteå, henceforth called the Skellefteå dialect. Data from this dialect indicate that the concept NOT YET can be expressed not